احد يشرح لي هذه النقطة

[mmaj2004]

Hi,

I have read:

Rule 1: If something or someone is sufficiently identified, the description following it is considered nonessential and should be surrounded by commas.

Examples:

Freddy, who has a limp, was in an automobile accident.

(Freddy is named, so the description of him that immediately follows is not essential.)

My Q:

What if that person is not sufficiently identified, but the name of the person, in this case Freddy, is already there though. For example:


Say, in my village there are four Freddys. But one of them has a limp. I think if that part between commas wasn't mentioned it will not be clear for me which Freddy is meant. So, don't you think that in such case the sentence should contain no commas as the Who-clause is very important to know which of the Freddys meant?

e.g.

Freddy who has a limp was in an automobile accident.


There is also a point I want to question about.

As long the description following is considered nonessential and should be surrounded by commas, I wonder why it is added. I mean, we can have a sentence like this:

Freddy was in an automobile accident.